DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings, specifically Figures 3 and 4, are objected to for excessive shading, see MPEP 1.84(m). New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because some of the drawings are shaded in black and grey, which reduces legibility. According to MPEP CFR 1.84(m), shading is only acceptable if it does not reduce legibility. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims should begin with “A” or “The.” For example, “The modular system for cultivation according to claim 1.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “Modular system for cultivation preferably in urban environment.” The word “Preferably” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether this is required of the claim or not.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10 use the phrase “can be”. The use of the language "can be" renders the limitation indefinite. "Can be" makes it unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is required of the claim, and what exactly the bounds of the limitation are, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 states “a web platform that allows to profile the single pot and/or the single user.” It is unclear what this claim is trying to state, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, it is unclear what is required of “allow to profile” in terms of the web platform.
Claim 7 states “as well as can provide Academy, tips and videos to learn to cultivate.” It is unclear what “can provide academy” means, and what is required of this claim language, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cultivated soil" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 states “an outer cover configured to resist atmospheric agents.” It is unclear what the boundaries of this claim are, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, the specification states “the outer cover 70 is made of a material resistant to ultraviolet (UV) rays, and to temperature changes” on page 9. However, there is no material that is fully resistant to temperature. Therefore it is unclear exactly what the boundaries of “resist” are. Additionally, it is unclear what atmospheric agents are included in the limitation. For example, the specification states “Preferably, the outer cover 70 is made of a material resistant to ultraviolet (UV) rays… Preferably, the outer cover 70 is made of plastic.” However, in the long term, UV rays will break down plastic and eventually degrade the plastic over time. Therefore, it is unclear what materials are included in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkata et al. (US 2022/0369566) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/26/25) in view of Cox (US 2019/0075740).
Regarding Claim 1, Venkata discloses a modular system for cultivation preferably in urban environment (Figure 1), wherein said system comprises at least one cultivation pot (gardening appliance 100), said pot being provided with a plurality of environmental sensors (“hydration system 120 may include a moisture sensor positioned in one or more of the plant pods 104” Paragraph [0027]; water level sensor 160; water quality sensor 162, light sensor 194), a water tank which feeds an irrigation circuit (reservoir 112 with water 114; Figures 1 and 6), said pot being able to be combined with an electronic card (control panel 150) configured to receive data from said sensors and to impart commands to a submersible pump in the tank (“According to such an embodiment, recirculation pump 126 may be activated when such a moisture sensor indicates the plants 106 need to be watered.” Paragraph [0027]; “feedback from water level sensor 160 may be used to determine when to open supply valve 144 to supply additional water 114 into collection reservoir 112.” Paragraph [0037]), wherein said pump allows the irrigation according to pre-set irrigation programmes (“this hydration cycle may be performed according to a periodic schedule to hydrate plants 106.” Paragraph [0027]) characterized in that said electronic card is configured to communicate in low frequency with other remote cultivation pots equipped with similar electronic cards (“communication between indoor gardening appliance 100, external device 172, remote server 176, and/or other user devices or appliances may be carried using any type of wired or wireless connection… communications may be transmitted using any suitable communications devices or protocols, such as via Wi-Fi®, Bluetooth®, Zigbee®,” Paragraph [0042], Zigbee uses the frequencies listed in Applicant’s specification).
Venkata fails to explicitly disclose wherein said pump can be electrically powered.
However, Cox teaches a similar planter system (Figure 1), wherein said pump (water pump 6) can be electrically powered (“The base unit, generally referenced as 1, provides not only a stable platform upon which the units rests, but houses the batteries and controller that sends electrical power to the pump.” Paragraph [0038]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pump of Venkata, with the battery powered pump of Cox, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure efficient powering of the pump, while still allowing for easy mobility of the pot.
Regarding Claim 2, Venkata as modified teaches modular system for cultivation according to claim 1. Venkata further discloses the modular system for cultivation, in which the electronic cards of a plurality of cultivation pots can be interconnected to form a mesh network (“communications may be transmitted using any suitable communications devices or protocols, such as via Wi-Fi®, Bluetooth®, Zigbee®,” Paragraph [0042]; Zigbee is a mesh network).
Regarding Claim 3, Venkata as modified teaches modular system for cultivation according to claim 1. Venkata further discloses the modular system for cultivation, wherein the sensors applicable to the cultivation pot comprise at least one sensor selected from: sensors of temperature, humidity, PM2.5, ambient light, battery charge status, water level in the tank (water level sensor 160), water pH (water quality sensor 162; Paragraph [0038]), plant health status and air quality.
Regarding Claim 4, Venkata as modified teaches modular system for cultivation according to claim 1. Venkata further discloses the modular system for cultivation, wherein the electronic card is combined with a single pot for controlling the functionalities of such pot (Figure 1; “a controller 156 that may be generally configured to facilitate appliance operation… controller 156 may receive control inputs from user input devices 152, may display information using display 154, and may otherwise regulate operation of indoor gardening appliance 100” Paragraph [0032]) and/or can serve as electronic hub for sorting data from and to the cloud for controlling the functionalities of a plurality of pots in a community.
Regarding Claim 5, Venkata as modified teaches modular system for cultivation according to claim 1. Venkata further discloses the modular system for cultivation, wherein the electronic card applied to said pot can be integrated with a software application for mobile devices to remotely manage the pot functionalities with a web platform that allows to profile the single pot and/or the single user (“external device 172 may be any suitable device separate from indoor gardening appliance 100 that is configured to provide and/or receive communications, information, data, or commands from a user. In this regard, external device 172 may be, for example, a personal phone, a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop or personal computer, a wearable device, a smart home system, or another mobile or remote device.” Paragraph [0040]; “external device 172 may communicate with a remote server 176 over network 174, such as the Internet, to transmit/receive data or information, provide user inputs, receive user notifications or instructions, interact with or control indoor gardening appliance 100, etc.” Paragraph [0041]; see 112b rejection above).
Regarding Claim 11, Venkata as modified teaches the modular system for cultivation according to claim 8.
Venkata fails to disclose the modular system for cultivation, wherein said pot comprises a power supply battery.
However, Cox teaches a similar planter system, wherein said pot comprises a power supply battery (“The base unit, generally referenced as 1, provides not only a stable platform upon which the units rests, but houses the batteries and controller that sends electrical power to the pump.” Paragraph [0038]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot of Venkata, with the battery power of Cox, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure efficient powering of the pump, while still allowing for easy mobility of the pot.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkata in view of Cox as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 114190194).
Regarding Claim 6, Venkata as modified teaches modular system for cultivation according to claim 5.
Venkata fails to disclose the modular system for cultivation, wherein said application provides for a system for recognizing geographical cardinal directions as an aid to positioning the pot and is integrated with the sensors positioned in the pot to ensure culture control.
However, Wang teaches a plant pot system, wherein said application provides for a system for recognizing geographical cardinal directions as an aid to positioning the pot and is integrated with the sensors positioned in the pot to ensure culture control (“connected with the mobile phone, microprocessor 19 reading the locating information and sensor data from the mobile phone, the direction indicating device adjusting tray aligned to the south direction, and adjusting the flowerpot to the horizontal state, then it is initial state, according to the south direction and the horizontal plane read from the mobile phone,” Page 5 Paragraph 4 of translation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the application of Venkata, with the geographical cardinal directions of Wang, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow to user to easily position the pot, in order to ensure the plant receives the power amount of sunlight.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkata in view of Cox as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Gabay (US 2019/0113495) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/26/25) and Adams et al. (US 11064660).
Regarding Claim 7, Venkata as modified teaches modular system for cultivation according to claim 5. Venkata further discloses said application can provide a user with push information that relates to remote control of the pot (“this communication may be used to provide and receive operating parameters, user instructions or notifications, performance characteristics, user preferences, or any other suitable information for improved performance of indoor gardening appliance 100.” Paragraph [0039]), as well as information that is available on the move and that is perfectly matching the situation of the pot culture (“external device 172 may communicate with a remote server 176 over network 174, such as the Internet, to transmit/receive data or information, provide user inputs, receive user notifications or instructions, interact with or control indoor gardening appliance 100, etc.” Paragraph [0041]).
Venkata fails to disclose wherein said application can be combined with a video camera for streaming footage, as well as can provide Academy, tips and videos to learn to cultivate.
However, Gabay teaches a modular system for cultivation, wherein said application can be combined with a video camera for streaming footage (Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the application of Venkata, with the video streaming of Gabay, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily monitor their plants remotely, to help ensure healthy growing conditions.
Additionally, Adams teaches a similar growing system, wherein the software application can provide Academy, tips and videos to learn to cultivate (“instructional tutorials can be combined with and work in tandem with automation software application described above” Col. 10 lines 43-46).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the application of Venkata, with the tutorials of Adams, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help provide the user with enough information to successfully cultivate plants.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkata in view of Cox as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma (US 5222603).
Regarding Claim 8, Venkata as modified teaches modular system for cultivation according to claim 1.
Venkata fails to disclose the modular system for cultivation, wherein said pot provides a supporting skeleton and a flexible covering element configured to be fitted on said supporting skeleton and to contain the cultivated soil.
However, Ma teaches a plant pot, wherein said pot provides a supporting skeleton (frame 12; Figure 1) and a flexible covering element (slat 30 with fabric 41; Figures 1, 5, and 7) configured to be fitted on said supporting skeleton and to contain the cultivated soil (Figure 1; “wherein the apparatus would function as a wall container for a plant.” Claim 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot of Venkata, with the skeleton and covering element of Ma, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easy disassembly and storage of the pot, as well as to allow the user to customize the appearance of the pot.
Regarding Claim 9, Venkata as modified teaches modular system for cultivation according to claim 8.
Venkata fails to disclose Modular system for cultivation, wherein said flexible covering element comprises an outer cover configured to resist atmospheric agents and an inner cover permeable to water, said outer cover and said inner cover being integrally coupled.
However, Ma teaches a plant pot, wherein said flexible covering element comprises an outer cover configured to resist atmospheric agents (slats 30; see 112b rejection above) and an inner cover permeable to water (flexible fabric portion 41; Figures 5 and 7), said outer cover and said inner cover being integrally coupled (“a continuous flexible fabric portion 41, which has a first upper face 42, which the slat members 30 would be adhered to as illustrated in FIG. 2. This adherence would be accomplished through gluing or the like,” Col. 3 lines 4-8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot of Venkata, with the skeleton and covering element of Ma, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easy disassembly and storage of the pot, as well as to allow the user to customize the appearance of the pot., while ensuring the pot can still structurally support a plant.
Regarding Claim 10, Venkata as modified teaches modular system for cultivation according to claim 8.
Venkata fails to disclose the modular system for cultivation, wherein said flexible covering element is removably combined with respect to said supporting skeleton so that it can be replaced.
However, Ma teaches a plant pot wherein said flexible covering element is removably combined with respect to said supporting skeleton so that it can be replaced (Figures 1 and 5-7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pot of Venkata, with the skeleton and covering element of Ma, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easy disassembly and storage of the pot, as well as to allow the user to customize the appearance of the pot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Borhani (US 2023/0337606) and Hakia (US 2023/0309475) are considered relevant prior art as they pertain to similar plant pot systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights